In the opening chapter of his work, Evola can be forgiven for
appearing to sound like a typical Catholic fundamentalist. According to
the Baron, socio - political subversion (eversio)
was
introduced
into Europe for the first time with the 1789 and 1848 revolutions.
Catholic writers like Chesterton, Belloc and a whole array of popes and
cardinals would agree with him. Indeed, Evola even suggests that the
term 'reactionary' should be adopted by those who
realise the true
extent to which the forces of liberalism, Marxism and democracy are
advancing their secret agenda. We are informed that if this term had
not been so furiously rejected by the conservative opponents of
revolution, our European nations would have been relatively more
salvageable. But now that several decades have passed since the book
was first published, had the author still been alive he may well have
been surprised to learn that his ideas have found significant
expression within the ranks of those who have become known as
'conservative revolutionaries'. For Evola,
therefore, perhaps the
apparently conflicting terminology in this phrase would have been a
misnomer. On the contrary, it was used throughout the twentieth century
by men such as Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Michael Walker, Armin
Mohler and Otto Strasser. In fact Evola tells us himself that
'conservative revolution' should not be connected
with the term 'reaction' because the former has distinctly
positive and energetic
connotations. Revolution in this sense, he admits, simply means
restoring order and thus avoiding entirely its chaotic antithesis. He
even defines revolution (revolutio) - not as a
departure from
prevailing trends - but as a return to origins. Thus revolution, in his
evaluation of the term, indicates a replenishment of that which has
gone before.
But the word "conservative" can also be very misleading. Evola
argues that "it is necessary to first establish as exactly as possible
what needs to be 'preserved'". He is also under no illusion that
capitalists have long used this term with which to advance the
interests of their own class, rather than "committing themselves to a
stout defence of a higher right, dignity, and impersonal legacy of
values, ideas and principles." This suggests a kind of aristocratic
benevolence, a chivalric sense of duty and sacrifice. Evola also
believes that the State must not concern itself with economic matters,
rather assuming a transcendent role in opposition to the class -
oriented
obsessions of both the bourgeoisie and Marxists alike. Furthermore, he
tells us, "what really counts is to be faithful not to past forms and
institutions, but rather to principles of which such forms and
institutions have been particular expressions." So, therefore, the
success of tradition lies in our ability to create new forms from the
etymological drawing - board which inspired those of the past, a
process
which works its way down through the generations as though divinely
inspired. In other words it is not the transitory or - in the case of
historical personality cults - even the idolatrous facets which are of
value, but those which are everlasting and permanent. Indeed, Evola
pours scorn upon the very term 'historical' because
such matters rise
above and beyond the whole notion of history altogether. Mircea Eliade
has discussed this idea at length in The Myth of The Eternal
Return [Princeton,
1991], echoed here by Evola: "These principles are not compromised by
the fact that in various instances an individual, out of weakness or
due to other reasons, was able to actualise them or to even implement
them partially at one point in his life rather than another." The
designers and schemers of the modern age, of course, dismiss these
aspects as having been a consequence of the period in which they were
apparently expressed. So therefore tradition and historicism are
totally irreconcilable. The author's own homeland also comes
in for
some criticism, with Evola firmly believing that Italy has no material
or ideological connection with tradition and that her only hope lies in
a spiritual renewal.
Returning to the dangers of revolution - at least in the purely
negative sense as defined above - we are reminded of the more positive,
Hegelian analysis: "the negation of the negation." In other words,
eradicating that which in itself has been the great eradicator is a
worthwhile objective. On the other hand, Evola is being slightly
pedantic when he criticises the adoption of the "revolutionary spirit,"
lest it sound too progressive or wild. His denunciation of the
unfulfilling legend of technological advancement, however, is very
accurate indeed: "Those who are not subject to the predominant
materialism of our times, upon recognising the only context in which it
is legitimate to speak of progress, will be on guard against any
orientation in which the modern 'myth of progress' is reflected."
Indeed, there are many such examples, all of which contend either
blindly or knowingly that the past must be eradicated for the good of
the present. This, says Evola, is "history's demolition
squad." It is
rather surprising, therefore, to consider that in his youth Evola
offered his support to Italian Futurism. Not, of course, that
Marinetti's pledge to raze libraries and museums to the
ground was ever
designed to be an attempt to destroy the perennial essence which always
transcends the purely anachronistic. The contentious issue of Fascism
is also tackled by Evola and is here regarded as being valid only when
it concords with tradition. To stand vigorously in favour of Fascism
simply for its own sake, is akin to the fulminating negativity inherent
within many of its anti - fascist opponents.
2. SOVEREIGNTY - AUTHORITY
- IMPERIUM
According to Evola, "every true political unity appears as the
embodiment of an idea and a power, thus distinguishing itself from
every form of naturalistic association or 'natural right', and also
from every societal aggregation determined by mere social, economic,
biological, utilitarian, or eudemonistic factors." He goes on to point
out that, for the Romans at least, the very idea of an imperium of
sovereign power was something perceived to be highly sacred. This
functioned by way of a mystical trinity comprised of the Leader (auctoritas),
the Nobility (gens) and the State (res
publica).
Evola's interpretation of the imperium is certainly supported
by those
historians who - like Edward Gibbon and Oswald Spengler - have allowed
the Holy Roman Empire its own unique and symbolic niche in both time
and space. That it prevailed until its disastrous collapse at
Constantinople in 1453, of course, is demonstrative of the way in which
the very idea of imperium survived the various cycles of history in
which it found itself. Evola also reminds us of De Maistre's
assertion
that a "power and authority that are not absolute, are not real
authority or real power" at all.
The author then turns his mind to judicial matters, stating that,
whenever the State rises above the merely temporal laws of the nation,
it assumes the role of an independently organic entity. In other words,
Evola is basically suggesting that in cases of national emergency, for
example, the State can flex its muscles and prove just how transcendent
it really is by overriding the laws of the judiciary. This notion will
fill the average supporter of democracy and egalitarianism with some
horror, but Evola is referring to a central principle of authoritative
order rather than advocating that a fascist dictatorship rule over the
masses with an iron fist (although he does suggest that a temporary
dictatorship can often get things back on track). Indeed, this is
rather similar to the way Cicero analyses Natural Law and the fact that
it only applies to those who seek to transgress its permanently
entrenched codes.
Evola also refutes the idea that power should rise up to the State
from the grass roots, for example in the way that Muammar al - Qathafi
explains the concept in The Green Book. As far as
he is
concerned, the State is not the expression or embodiment of the people
at all. This "political domain is defined through hierarchical, heroic,
ideal, anti - hedonistic, and, to a degree, even anti - eudemonistic
values
that set it apart from the order of naturalistic and vegetative life."
But this is almost like a paradox. If the State completely transcends
the ordinary functions of what most people consider to be the role of a
State, then surely Evola's vision is one of anarchic
authority? Evola
may have disagreed with the use of the term "anarchy," but surely the
State for him is more mystical than fully tangible in the purely
ordinary sense? By this, I am implying that the State is present as a
guiding authority at the helm of a nation or empire, but absent in
terms of the way it is perceived by most people. Anarchy, of course,
does not mean that authority is non - existent, it simply refers to the
absence of rule. Therefore Evola's concept of the mystical
State may
well be altogether detached from the socio - economic version which
writers like Peter Kropotkin (The State: Its Historic Role),
Michael Bakunin (Marxism, Freedom & The State)
or Herbert Spencer (The Man Versus The State)
have gone to such great lengths in order to analyse and dissect. Evola
makes a profound distinction between the political and social aspects
of the State, arguing that it emanates from a specific family (gens)
and thus rejecting the idea that states can arise from the naturalistic
plane. At first, this appears to be a contradiction in terms, because,
surely, the family is a naturalistic phenomenon? On the contrary, Evola
is referring to an altogether different interpretation of the term
"family," that of the Mannerbunde (or all - male fraternity). Given the
nature of the Mafia, of course, Italians should find it that much
easier to appreciate the subtle differences in terminology. Evola was
also a Freemason and wrote extensively on the Mithraic sun - cult, both
prime examples of the Mannerbunde and possessing deep initiatic
qualities which - by way of a series of trials and degrees - take the
male apprentice way beyond his maternalistic upbringing on the exoteric
plane. Thus a significant change takes place both within the man
himself and the way he is then perceived by others. But this
interpretation is not designed to leave women out of the equation, it
simply states that whilst men are the natural frequenters of the
mystical, or political, domain, women are the pivotal masters of
society. It lies completely "under the feminine aegis." Those readers
who are familiar with Evola's Revolt Against The
Modern World [Inner
Traditions, 1995] will grasp the higher significance of what Evola is
trying to say. Indeed, in the present work he summarises these
metaphysical concepts thus: "The common mythological background is that
of the duality of the luminous and heavenly deities, who are the gods
of the political and heroic world on the one hand, and of the feminine
and maternal deities of naturalistic existence, who were loved by the
plebeian strata of society on the other hand. Thus, even in the ancient
Roman world, the idea of State and of imperium (i.e., of the sacred
authority) was strictly connected to the symbolic cult of the virile
deities of heaven, of light and of the super - world in opposition to
the
dark region of the Mothers and the chthonic deities." If we follow
Evola's line of thinking, we soon arrive at the medieval idea
of the
divine right of kings. This, he tells us, was a development which -
contrary to the earlier imperium - was not consolidated "by the power
of a rite." Traditional Catholics would disagree wholeheartedly with
this conclusion, at least right up until the Reformation and Henry
VIII's well - documented break with Rome. And if the divine
right of
kings is one step removed from the imperium, the next logical stage of
decline is that of Socialism and the demos; which Evola describes as
"the degradation and contamination of the political principle."
Furthermore, he argues, "[b]oth democracy and socialism ratify the
shift from the masculine to the feminine and from the spiritual to the
material and the promiscuous."
Evola is often portrayed by his opponents as a "fascist," but it
may surprise many of them to learn that he relegates "romantic and
idealistic" concepts such as the nation, the homeland, and the people
to the purely naturalistic and biological level. These issues, he
contends, have replaced a political principle that is representative of
a far higher and more penetrating tradition. By refusing to accept the
legitimacy of feudalism or the authority of the Holy Roman Empire, he
argues, nation - states tried to create their own pockets of authority.
Thus, the struggle between popes and princes, kings and noblemen, led a
vast centralisation of power which was epitomised by the Third Estate.
This is where Evola returns to what he perceives as the crucial - and
destructive - role played by the 1789 French Revolution, whereby the
final vestiges of tradition were erased from the face of Europe. The
process was aided by the 1848 Revolution and the onslaught of the First
World War, pitting nation against nation in the name of "patriotism."
Furthermore, he says, elevating a national identity or geographical
territory to a kind of mystical status completely erodes both authority
and sovereignty. Nations are associated with female terminology -
Motherland, for example - and therefore "attributed to the Great Mother
in ancient plebeian gynecocracies and in societies that ignored the
virile and political principle of the imperium." Evola goes on to
compare the political unit of the nation with the position of the soul
in comparison to the body. In other words, it assumes an "inner form,"
which totally goes beyond the popular understanding of the way a nation
is defined. It is true, after all, that nations do not arise purely by
themselves and so the hidden - spiritual - component is the true
guiding force. The nation is only perceived as an independent entity
with a life of its own once the political aspect has been significantly
weakened: "From the political class understood as an Order and a
Mannerbund a shift occurs to to the democratic ruling classes who
presume to 'represent' the people and who acquire for themselves the
various offices or positions of power by flattering and manipulating
the masses." This, according to Evola, is due to the lack of real men
in contemporary society and - paying his respects to Carlyle in the
process - he goes on to warn us that we live in a "world of domestics
that yearns to be ruled by a pseudo - hero.' Indeed, there is little
doubt that the parliamentary system, for example, never fails to
deviate from the idea of the nation as myth, despite the fact that the
political sphere is never regarded as being sovereign in itself. Evola
attacks universal suffrage because he sees it as the consequence of
"the degradation of the ruling class." It is certainly a fact that the
reforms of the nineteenth century were achieved at the expense of the
ruling classes, but, from an Evolian perspective, the scales were
tipped at both ends. The consequence of this formative episode in
European history, modern democracy, saw the true political unit
replaced with a corrupt and bastardised system based entirely on
materialism.
But what of those nations which have actually followed the
political principle to the letter? We are informed by Evola that the
nation will always be potentially compromised, whilst "on the one side
stand the masses, in which, besides changing feelings, the same
elementary instincts and interests connected to a physical and
hedonistic plane will always have free play; and on the other side
stand men who differentiate themselves from the masses as bearers of a
complete legitimacy and authority, bestowed by the Idea and by their
rigorous, impersonal adherence to it. The Idea, only the Idea, must be
the true fatherland for these men: what unites and sets them apart
should consist in adherence to the same idea, rather than to the same
land, language, or blood." This is a pretty bold statement, given that
Evola is usually - and wrongly - associated with certain elements of
the Far Right. Perhaps this is why the Assassins and their Knights
Templar contemporaries found that they had so much in common? That
which is most important, therefore, is not one's adherence to
a nation
or a race - which instantly means that one must love, respect and work
for the best interests of his compatriots without question - but
one's
loyalty and fidelity to the very essence and spirit of tradition. In
Evola's own words: "The true task and the necessary premise
for the
rebirth of the 'nation' and for its renewed form and conscience
consists of untying and separating that which only apparently,
promiscuously, or collectively appears to be one entity, and in
re - establishing a virile substance in the form of a political elite
around which a new crystallisation will occur." This, of course, is
very different to the sheep - like mentality of most nationalist
groups.
One only has to look at the recent revival in England of a
pseudo - patriotism built upon the most base and plebeian values of
modern culture. Aligning oneself with existing national stereotypes, of
course, is hardly making an attempt to transcend the sterile values
which are embraced by the masses. The Idea that Evola talks about is
based upon "strength and clarity, rather than 'idealism' and
sentimentality." The nation has to be integrated with the political, so
that the whole concept is raised to a much higher level by replacing
the degenerative ruling classes with a new, elite aristocracy of cadres.
3. PERSONALITY - FREEDOM -
HIERARCHY
In this chapter the author begins by attacking liberalism, the
chief scourge behind the French Revolution. Many have tried to define
liberalism, including Traditional Catholics like Pope Pius XI [Quadragesimo
Anno], Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre [They Have
Uncrowned Him], Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany [What Is
Liberalism?] and Rev. Fr. Stephen P. DeLallo [The
Sword of Christendom],
although today the word is wrongly associated with anarcho -
capitalists
and right - wing libertarians. So how does Evola define the term?: "The
essence of liberalism is individualism. The basis of its error is to
mistake the notion of the person with that of the individual and to
claim for the latter, unconditionally and according to egalitarian
premises, some values that should rather be attributed solely to the
former, and then only conditionally. Because of this transposition,
these values are transformed into errors, or into something absurd and
harmful." Egalitarianism - another mainstay of the 1879 Revolution - is
completely dismissed by Evola due to its fundamentally ridiculous
belief in the equality of all individuals. It not only relegates the
person to the level of a mere part within the broader egalitarian mass,
which Evola rightly shows to be a contradiction in terms, it
obliterates human diversity by suggesting that no one person is
significantly different to another. From the judicial perspective, of
course, it is surely wrong to establish a form of fake "justice" by
ensuring that everybody is legally bound in an unjust manner. It is
also entirely out of step with Natural Law. Evola explains: "the lower
degrees of reality are differentiated from the higher ones because in
the lower degrees a whole can be broken down into many parts, all of
which retain the same quality (as in the case of the parts of a
non - crystallised mineral, or those parts of some plants and animals
that reproduce themselves by parthenogenesis); in the higher degrees of
reality this is no longer possible, as there is a higher organic unity
in them that does not allow itself to be split without being
compromised and without its parts entirely losing the quality, meaning,
and function they had in it." When Evola speaks of parthenogenesis, of
course, he is referring to those invertebrates and lower plants which
engage in a form of sterile self - reproduction. The allegedly "free"
individual, therefore, is considered to be inorganic and much lower
than its organic superior. Meanwhile, the true person is he who
continues to remain "unequal" due to his own distinct features and
abilities. Natural individuation is not the same as crass
individualism. At the same time, however, Evola does not infer that
everyone deserves the "right" to be regarded as a person. Thus, he
dispels the liberal myth that all of us possess some form of "human
dignity" regardless of who we are. In fact there are several different
levels of dignity each contained within a just and specific hierarchy.
So once again, Evola is dismissing the egalitarian idea of a "universal
right," brotherhood of equality or an automatic entitlement of some
kind. In times gone by, however, "'peers' and 'equals' were often
aristocratic concepts: in Sparta, the title homoioi ('equals') belonged
exclusively to the elite in power (the title was revoked in cases of
misconduct)."
Moving on, the notion of freedom - a favourite catchword of those
engaged in the struggle between classes - is regarded in the same
manner. It is something we enjoy as a consequence of who we are as a
person, rather than simply because we happen to be a member of
humanity. Evola remarks that freedom does not come in any one form, but
is actually multifarious and homogenous. He goes on to suggest that the
freedom "to do" is quite different from the freedom "for doing."
Indeed, whilst the former has to function within a controlled and
standardised system of liberal "equality" (which inevitably leads,
therefore, to one class disregarding the freedoms of others), the
latter has more in common with Aleister Crowley's
often - misunderstood
expressions "do as thou wilt" and "every man and woman is a star." In
other words, by possessing the freedom "to do," one can follow
one's
own unique course and act in accordance with one's true
nature.
So how does the individual relate to society as a whole? Tradition
accords with the ultimate supremacy of the individual, or what Ernst
Junger has defined elsewhere as "the anarch" or "sovereign individual"
[see Eumeswil, Quartet, 1993]. Evola even puts the
sovereignty
of the person before the State, because he views people not "as they
are conceived by individualism, as atoms or a mass of atoms, but people
as persons, as differentiated beings, each one endowed with a different
rank, a different freedom, a different right within the social
hierarchy based on the values of creating, constructing, obeying, and
commanding. With people such as these it is possible to establish the
true State, namely an anti - liberal, anti - democratic, and organic
State." This vision, however, depends upon the advancement of the
person through various stages of individuation and self - awareness.
Natural inequality, therefore, will lead to an organic structure of
society at the very helm of which stands the "absolute individual."
This figurehead, says Evola, is completely different to the mere
concept of the individual because it encapsulates that which is most
qualitative within man. The "absolute individual" is fundamentally
opposed to the concept that society itself is the ultimate
manifestation of humanity. It is the sheer pinnacle of a transcendental
sovereignty which represents the synthesising nature of the imperium.
Moreover, of course, the idea can become manifest within the framework
of the nation and seems defiantly opposed to present trends like
globalisation and multi - racialism: "Thus, it is a positive and
legitimate thing to uphold the right of the nation in order to assert
an elementary and natural principle of difference of a given human
group over and against all the forms of individualistic disintegration,
international mixture and proletarisation, and especially against the
mere world of the masses and pure economy." To achieve this process,
Evola declares that the State must be established from the nation
itself.
But if one is seeking to fully align himself with the principles of
Evolian thought, a person who is free in the true sense of the word
must never be constrained by national, racial or family ties. This does
not imply that he should actively seek to turn himself against them, on
the contrary, the importance is to follow one's own path.
Indeed, this
course - which must lead towards the creation of the New Man - requires
great discipline and understanding. Many who try, however, will fall by
the wayside: "he who does not have the capability to dominate himself
and to give himself a code to abide by would not know how to dominate
others according to justice or how to give them a law to follow. The
second foundation is the idea. previously upheld by Plato, that those
who cannot be their own masters should find a master outside of
themselves, since practising the discipline of obeying should teach
these people how to master their own selves." People are therefore
different, although Evola does make a distinction between the
ruthlessness of "natural selection" and that of respect. In ancient
societies the people who were most respected and admired were those
with special abilities and qualities, not simply animalistic strength
and brute force. The secret, of course, is to ensure that "power is
based on superiority and not vice versa." It is certainly not necessary
to bludgeon people into submission in order to get them to respect true
leadership and ability. In the light of what Evola really thinks about
such matters, therefore, you have to wonder why on earth Evolian
Tradition was ever compared to Fascist totalitarianism in the first
place.
The fact that Evola so openly acknowledges that there are various
stations in life will outrage liberals, Marxists and advocates of
democracy alike. But he is, nevertheless, absolutely correct. Forcing
people to accord with a societal conglomeration which has been
enshrined in law by a coterie of dogmatists and architectural
levellers, is simply not allowing people to discover and thus
accomplish their true destinies. Evola believes that historical events
have often been determined by the manner in which "the inferior" -
which is not used in a derogatory sense - regard their "superior"
counterparts. Indeed, to believe that humanity can somehow be subjected
to a form of international utilitarianism is naive and misguided in the
extreme. Humans are prone to "emotional or irrational motivation" and,
inevitably, this will usually be the dominant factor which shapes the
course of their lives. The Evolian - and, thus, traditional - approach
to organisation lies in what is described as the "anagogical function"
of the State and its latent ability to both engender and co - ordinate
the individual's sacrificial capacity to ally himself with a
higher
principle. The success of man's organisational capacity,
therefore, is
not based purely on economics or prosperity but depends on whether the
organic hierarchical balance has been maintained effectively. Within
the liberal system, of course, the balance is upset by the fact that he
"who becomes an individual, by ceasing to have an organic meaning and
by refusing to acknowledge any principle of authority, is nothing more
than a number, a unit in the pack; his usurpation evokes a fatal
collectivist limitation against himself." Liberalism, therefore, may
appear to defend freedom but it is actually a means of subverting it
altogether. Marxism functions in the same way and both ideologies stem
- once again - from the French Revolution: "when Western man broke the
ties to Tradition, claiming for himself as an individual a vain and
illusory freedom: when he became an atom in society, rejecting every
higher symbol of authority and sovereignty in a system of hierarchies."
Fascism, by falsely claiming to restore the traditional equilibrium,
actually worsened the situation by initiating a crude and materialistic
form of totalitarianism.
The worst example of liberalism is its dependence upon
economic
exploitation. Evola charts the decline of economic stability from the
death of the feudal system - when "the organic connection... between
personality and property, social function and wealth, and between a
given qualification or moral nobility and the rightful and legitimate
possession of goods, was broken" - and the onset of the Napoleonic
Code, right through to the desanctification of property and the arrival
of the unscrupulous capitalist. So what, according to Evola, is the
role of the traditionalist in light of the modern evils which were
unleashed over two hundred years ago? Our response must be founded upon
a return to origins: "To go back to the origins means, plainly and
simply, to reject anything that in any domain (whether social,
political, or economic) is connected to the 'immortal principles' of
1789, as a libertarian, individualistic, and egalitarian thought, and
to oppose it with the hierarchical view, in the context of which alone
the notion, value, and freedom of man as person are not reduced to mere
words or excuses for a work of destruction and subversion."
4. ORGANIC STATE -
TOTALITARIANISM
Evola now attempts to make a distinction between the totalitarian
and organic State. The democracies have gone to great lengths in order
to portray the traditional State "in a heinous way," ensuring that
opponents of democracy are instantly equated with brutality and
fascism. Totalitarianism, being a relatively modern word, is inevitably
applied to past systems in a purely retrospective manner. Evola,
however, seeks to approach the question of totalitarianism by examining
the way in which the term is actually defined by the democracies.
Therefore whenever the author refers to the more positive aspects of
"totalitarianism," these components are said to accord with the organic
State: "A State is organic when it has a centre, and this centre is an
idea that shapes the various domains of life in an efficacious way; it
is organic when it ignores the division and the autonomisation of the
particular and when, by virtue of a system of hierarchical
participation, every part within its relative autonomy performs its own
function and enjoys an intimate connection with the whole." It is not
difficult to see how this differs fundamentally with the individualism
and liberalism of the modern age. Evola rightly points out that more
traditional societies were even able to accommodate a loyal opposition.
In stark contrast to the representative party system of today, the
early English Parliament was far more pluralist and was often heard to
refer to "His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition."
But the organic State also had a spiritual or religious
dimension, whereby the political was formulated in accordance with a
more penetrating and unitary outlook. This, says Evola, is what makes
the organic synonymous with the traditional. In the minds of the
liberals and the communists, of course, this healthy approach to former
societies and a more pluralist style of organisation inevitably means
that tradition is wrongly equated with "fascism." Evola, on the other
hand, is able to counter this fraudulent analogy by explaining that
"totalitarianism merely represents the counterfeited image of the
organic ideal. It is a system in which unity is imposed from the
outside, not on the basis of the intrinsic force of a common idea and
an authority that is naturally acknowledged, but rather through direct
forms of intervention and control, exercised by a power that is
exclusively and materially political, imposing itself as the ultimate
reason for the system." Having lived through Mussolini's
Italy, of
course, Evola was more than aware of the shortcomings relating to the
Corporate State. Totalitarian dictatorship also fails to accept the
organic chain that runs between the upper and lower poles of
traditional society, replacing pluralism, decentralisation and
participation with the fuhrer - princip.
Furthermore,
the
totalitarian State "engenders a kind of sclerosis, or a monstrous
hypertrophy of the entire bureaucratic - administrative structure." The
Orwellian ministries of Nazi Germany spring to mind, becoming
"all - pervasive, replacing and suppressing every particular activity,
without any restraints, due to an insolent intrusion of the public
sphere into the private domain, organising everything into rigid
schemes." But these characteristics are not a purely modern phenomenon,
on the contrary, as Oswald Spengler notes in The Decline of
the West [Oxford
University Press, 1991, p. 73]: "the great cultures accomplish their
majestic wave - cycles. They appear suddenly, swell in splendid lines,
flatten again and vanish, and the face of the waters is once more a
sleeping waste." Thus, a similar pattern emerged during the
death - throes of Persia and Greece and, according to Edward Gibbon:
"the
demise of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate
greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of
destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time
or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric
yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is
simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was
destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so
long." [The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
Chatto &
Windus, 1960, p. 524 - 5]. Similarly, Evola likens the degenerative
process to a living organism: "after enjoying life and movement, a
stiffening sets in when they die that is typical of a body turning into
a corpse. This state, in turn, is followed by the terminal phase of
disintegration."
The way in which the organic or traditional State is
perceived is
also important. Fascism and Marxism tend to lead to blind statism, but
Evola believes that the organic State must be granted a degree of
"Statolatry." In other words, rather than seeking to worship the State
for its own sake, "[t]here is a profound and substantial difference
between the deification and absolutisation of what is profane and the
case in which the political reality derives its legitimisation from
reference points that are also spiritual and somehow transcendent."
This is the difference between the materialist and the spiritual, the
totalitarian and the organic. The spiritual element acts like a
societal adhesive, binding together the unitary whole to which the
people are willingly attached without coercion or repression. In
contemporary Western societies it is considered normal in certain
occupations and ceremonies to undertake an oath. But despite being a
remnant of the distant past, the oath today has been stripped of its
sacred implications and has become empty, meaningless and contractual.
This is because the State and various other national institutions have
become a merely temporal form of authority, rendering the more
spiritual expressions of verbal fidelity completely irrelevant. The
gulf between the contractual and the traditional is demonstrated by the
way in which the "Official Secrets Act" is designed to secure the
loyalty of the individual to the State. In feudal times, of course, the
intrinsically transcendent nature of the oath became manifest by way of
the sacramenum fidelitatis. This was infinitely more binding than
giving one's allegiance to a company, an institution or a
squadron.
But when the traditional State is said to represent a unitary
organism it must not be compared, warns Evola, to the humanistic vision
epitomised by Hegel's "Ethical State." Indeed, when Hegel
perceives the
individual to be part of a universal code of ethics, he is looking at
humanity through rose - tinted spectacles. The unworkable liberalism
which pervades this idealistic interpretation will only lead to one
thing: totalitarianism in the name of "tradition" and "order."
Therefore the "ethical" State inevitably leads to the "fascist" State,
with the destructive multi - party system being replaced with an even
more dangerous one - party dictatorship. Muammar al - Qadhafi, whose
vision
of the "organic" State conflicts with that proposed by Evola and other
traditionalists, defines the party thus: "It is the modern dictatorial
instrument of governing. The party is the rule of a part over the
whole" [The Green Book, Tripoli, 1977, p. 11]. On this point Evola
agrees, suggesting that once the party has ascended to power it simply
tries to advance the interests of its own faction. It is therefore
divisive and threatens the stability of that which must be unitary and
transcendent. The solution to this problem, it seems, lies in the
re - establishment of an elite suited to maintaining the balance of
sovereignty and authority. Evola suggests that this can be done from
within by both installing and enduring a period of interregnum,
although National - Anarchists prefer to advocate the foundation of new
decentralised communities on the periphery from which elite cadres
recreate the very essence of true aristocracy.
5. BONAPARTISM -
MACHIAVELLIANISM - ELITISM
Bonapartism is a rather unusual term and one which Evola borrows from
R. Michels, author of the 1915 work Political Parties: A
Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy.
Michels demonstrates how representative democracy and "government of
the people" leads to the control of the State by a self - interested
minority. This view is echoed by J. Burnham in The Machiavellians, who
explains that the so - called "will of the people" is eventually
superseded by the domination of a bureaucratic clique. Thus Bonapartism
begins with a popular demand for more freedom and equality and ends in
the totalitarian "dictatorship of the proletariat." Evola likens this
process to a people who have catastrophically "led and disciplined
themselves." After the decline of its aristocratic nobility, ancient
Greece witnessed the same systematically repressive phenomenon. Power
simply became detached from a higher, spiritual authority, leading to
fear and brutality. Evola then turns to Otto Weininger, who once
"described the figure of the great politician as one who is a despot
and at the same time a worshipper of the people, or simultaneously a
pimp and a whore." Indeed, by seeking to appeal to the masses the
modern leader easily commands their respect and adulation. Not in the
way that traditional societies gave their loyalty to the organic State,
however, because instead of engendering a healthy diversity between the
various levels (not classes) of society Bonapartism forces the
politician to become a "man of the people." Therefore he is perceived
as a common man, rather than as someone exceptionally transcendent and
symbolic. This, Weininger called "mutual prostitution." Authority is
perfectly useless unless it is attached to a central idea which runs
throughout the social fabric and acts as a point of reference. This
affects the individual because one "is restricted not so much in this
or that exterior freedom (which is, after all, of little consequence)
but rather in the inner freedom - the ability to free himself from his
lowest instincts." Bonapartism - which Evola interprets here as a
political, rather than militaristic, term - is equated with
dictatorship because this is the logical result of its democratic
ethos. It completely erodes the traditional values of human existence,
refusing to "distinguish clearly between the symbol, the function, and
the principle, on the one hand, and man as an individual, on the
other." Instead, it rejects "that a man be valued and recognised in
terms of the idea and principle he upholds" and simply views man in
terms of "his action upon the irrational forms of the masses."
Similarly, Evola points out the errors which began with
Social - Darwinism and consequently found expression in
Nietzsche's
concept of the Superman (Ubermensch): "most people,
even when
they admit the notion of aristocracy in principle, ultimately settle
for a very limited view of it: they admire an individual for being
exceptional and brilliant, instead of for being one in whom a tradition
and a special 'spiritual race' shine forth, or instead of whose
greatness is due not to his human virtues, but rather to the principle,
the idea, and a certain regal impersonality that he embodies."
Machiavellianism - despite its frequent portrayal as an
aristocratic notion - is also a highly individualist philosophy.
Indeed, although the concept of The Prince rejects
democracy
and the masses, it makes the fatal mistake of encouraging power and
authority to reside in the hands of man. In other words, man is himself
the be all and end all of Machiavellian doctrine. Such men are not
connected to a chain of Tradition, they are merely interested in
deploying their political capabilities to advance their own interests.
His very position is maintained by lies, deceit and manipulation,
becoming a rampant political monster to which everything must be
methodically subjected. This is clearly very different to the way in
which traditional aristocracies functioned and indicates that
Machiavellianism is a consequence of the general decline. True elitism,
argues Evola, degenerates in four stages: "in the first stage the elite
has a purely spiritual character, embodying what may be generally
called 'divine right'. This elite expresses an
ideal of immaterial
virility. In the second stage, the elite has the character of warrior
nobility; at the third stage we find the advent of oligarchies of a
plutocratic and capitalistic nature, such as they arise in democracies;
the fourth and last elite is that of the collectivist and revolutionary
leaders of the Fourth Estate."
6. WORK: THE DEMONIC NATURE
OF THE ECONOMY
When Evola discusses the "demonic nature of the economy," we are
instantly reminded of the capitalist free market and
communism's
deterministic assessment of man as economic unit (homo
economicus).
In the modern age economic forces have become the new gods of Mammon,
creating a dangerous and cataclysmic antithesis to the spiritual
aspirations of the ancient world. We have already examined how Evola
warns against the lack of hierarchical authority, and in this chapter
he demonstrates how both capitalism and Marxism have completely
subverted the organic nature of our whole existence: "as long as we
only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and
as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a
particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that,
generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth
or indigence - then we are not even close to what is essential." Thus
work and the modern economy are depicted as the penultimate goals of
human endeavour, rather than man accepting that his natural interests
must lie ultimately in the satisfaction of his own material needs. This
is not to suggest that food, clothing and shelter are the most
important facets of human existence, simply that they are the most
basic prerequisites of all. Man also needs to be satisfied both
spiritually and as part of a structure which: "neither knows nor
tolerates merely economic classes and does not know the division
between 'capitalists' and 'proletarians'; an order solely in terms of
which are to be defined the things worth living and dying for. We must
also uphold the need for a true hierarchy and for different
dignitaries, with a higher function of power installed at the top,
namely the imperium." But this vision is hardly being fulfilled today.
Everything is geared towards economic production and, inevitably,
wage - slavery. Evola does not believe in the formulation of a new
economic theory, instead he explains that the current obsession with
economic matters can only decline once people change their attitudes
completely: "What must be questioned is not the value of this or that
economic system, but the value of the economy itself." This is a
fundamental part of National - Anarchist thinking, too, a total
rejection
of the Left - Right spectrum which, once again, ever since the French
Revolution has imposed upon us a wholly superficial antithesis between
two allegedly opposed economic ideologies. Those so - called "backward"
nations which, thus far, have avoided economic development are said by
Evola to "enjoy a certain space and a relative freedom." By seizing
upon the issue of class, Marxists have deliberately obscured the
components of the ancient world by smearing them with an economic
grime. In traditional societies, of course, the economy was simply one
area within an all - encompassing hierarchical structure. Terms like
"capitalist" and "proletarian" did not exist and class struggle was
redundant: "Even in the domain of the economy, a normal civilisation
provides specific justification for certain differences in condition,
dignity, and function." Marxism, says Evola, did not come about due to
the need for a resolution to the social question, on the contrary,
Marxism itself has exacerbated the problem by creating the myth of the
class system. In traditional societies "an individual contained his
need and aspirations within natural limits; he did not yearn to become
different from what he was, and thus he was innocent of that Entfremdung
(alienation)
decried by Marxism." Leninists, Trotskyists and other advocates of the
class struggle will recoil in horror at this statement, but Evola is
denouncing the materialist desires of the common economic agitator
rather than supporting the aspirations of the "ruling class." Indeed,
economic determinism is considered to be unhealthy and detrimental
because "it can legitimately be claimed that the so - called
improvement
of social conditions should be regarded not as good but as evil, when
its price consists of the enslavement of the single individual to the
productive mechanism and to the social conglomerate; or in the
degradation of the State to the 'State based on
work', and the
degradation of society to 'consumer society'; or in
the elimination of
every qualitative hierarchy; or in the atrophy of every spiritual
sensibility and every 'heroic' attitude." There is
little doubt,
therefore, that the appliance of the economic worldview comes at a
great cost. Evola implores us to express our real selves and to unleash
our true potential. Each of us has a different function and a unique
position to fulfil. Class conflict, therefore, is a diversion which has
been thrust in the path of the unitary and the organic. In terms of the
way in which we approach work, Evola tells us that an American attempt
to extract more labour from a Third World workforce by doubling their
wages, was met with "a majority of the workers cutting their working
hours in half." Compare this traditionalist attitude with that of the
modern - day office or factory worker who perpetually competes for
overtime with his colleagues. Indeed, whilst traditional societies are
merely interested in satisfying their basic needs, those in the West
endure increasingly long hours, exhaustion, bad diets and severe health
problems in their pursuit for computers, televisions and cars. Evola
notes that, prior to the rise of the mercantile economy and the gradual
evolution of capitalism, "the acquisition of external goods had to be
restricted and that work and the quest for profit were justifiable only
in order to acquire a level of wealth corresponding to one's
status in
life: this was the Thomist and, later, the Lutheran view." Work was
always designed to satisfy man's basic needs and provide him
with the
time he needed in order to pursue more worthy and meaningful pursuits.
But when the acquisition of wealth becomes such an obsession that it
imprisons the individual within an economic straightjacket, something
is clearly very wrong indeed. Success, therefore, is not determined by
the credit in one's bank account or the growth of industry
and
technology, it relates to the way in which an individual is able to
progress in a more spiritual sense. Living in accordance with
one's own
intrinsic nature (dharma) is far preferable to pushing oneself beyond
the boundaries of normal behaviour through greed and materialism. This
trend is epitomised by the restless nature of the capitalistic economy
and its exploitative pursuit of new global markets. In the knowledge,
of course, that once it has run its inevitable course the lack of
available resources will herald its total collapse.
The emergence of capitalism has often been equated with the
Protestant work ethic, and is here dismissed by Evola for the simple
reason that labour has been transformed from a means of subsistence to
an end in itself. It is not only the Right who are obsessed with work,
of course, it is the Left too. One thinks of endless marches organised
by the likes of Militant Labour and the Socialist Workers Party, during
which the only objective is to enslave the proletariat to the
employment system: "The most peculiar thing is that this superstitious
and insolent cult of work is proclaimed in an era in which the
irreversible and relentless mechanisation eliminates from the main
varieties of work whatever in them still had a character of quality,
art, and the spontaneous unfoldment of a vocation, turning it into
something inanimate and devoid of even an immanent meaning." Evola sees
this process as the very proletarianisation of life itself. There are
certain parallels here with Richard Hunt's advocation of the
"leisure
society," in which man can rediscover the natural and qualitative
values of his existence. But Evola warns his readers that we must not
"shift to a renunciatory, utopian, and miserable civilisation," but
rather "clear every domain of life of insane tensions and to restore a
true hierarchy of values."
But whilst the individual is inadvertently eroding his own
freedoms by viewing work as the ultimate goal in life, the State is
also endangering its own existence through the encroaching scarcity of
resources to which increasing productivity leads. Evola argues that the
way forward lies in "autarchy," and that "it is better to renounce the
allure of improving general social and economic conditions and to adopt
a regime of austerity than to become enslaved to foreign interests or
to become caught up in world processes of reckless economic hegemony
and productivity that are destined to sweep away those who have set
them in motion." On this point, however, Evola is perhaps forgetting
that the decline of capitalistic economies is inevitable and therefore
it is futile to postpone their collapse by implementing a policy of
protectionism. This strategy may indeed enable a country to stave off
the effects of an impending economic catastrophe, but given that all
capitalist systems rely on the internationalist system, this simply
would not work in the long term.
7. HISTORY - HISTORICISM
Evola now turns his attention to the way in which history is so
often presented as a religious tenet of the modern age, representing
the switch from a world of being towards that of a world of becoming.
Indeed, whilst the former relates to an organic and stable form of
civilisation, the latter denotes a chaotic and constantly evolving
process in which "rationalist, scientific, and technological
civilisation" acts as the pied piper of our rapid decline. Rationalism
was perceived by Hegel as reality itself. Likewise, reality is also
rational. But traditional values, says Evola, cannot be analysed or
defined in this way because they are based on something far beyond the
comprehension of mere philosophy. Historicism often regards those
episodes which it cannot account for as "anti - historical." This has
been said of historical phenomena which appear to obstruct the process
of development in accordance with the rationalist worldview. This is
why historicists and modernists are fond of portraying conservatives -
in the true sense of the word - as "reactionaries" and enemies of
progress. Furthermore, it is not men who make history at all.
Traditionalists like Evola have learnt to recognise and accept the
transcendental forces which are never taken into consideration by
rationalist historians: "only an obsolete 'historicism' can be so
presumptuous to reduce everything to a linear development." Indeed,
both Marxism and Christianity adopt this method and the cyclical nature
of the universe is therefore ignored.
8. CHOICE OF TRADITIONS
Whilst the word "tradition" is used to describe Evola's
cosmological stance against the modern world (and that of certain other
Traditionalists like Guenon, Nasr and Schuon), he also accepts that
during certain key periods of his existence man has often used a series
of more commonly known traditions in order to act as a unifying force.
These forms of tradition relate to specific "suggestions and
catchphrases" which are used to revitalise or regenerate a
civilisation, although they can often assume a very "non - traditional"
form. Using the example of Italy, Evola points out that professional
subversives from the ranks of liberalism, communism and Freemasonry
have distorted certain words to ensure that they are equated with
patriotism and national pride. So to disagree with their objectives,
therefore, is to invoke accusations of "treachery" and "disloyalty."
This makes it rather difficult for traditionalists to adopt traditions
of their own without incurring the systematically - engineered
confusion
that sometimes accompanies them. Due to the fact that national
traditions are associated with the historical realities of a
country's
particular development, attempting to place such terminology in its
true context will inevitably lead to the adoption of the modern view
that a country's tradition is based upon its whole history.
This is why
Evola recommends the deconstruction of the mythology which surrounds
national patriotism itself. Italian pride consists in glorifying the
Italian Commune, the Renaissance and the Risorgimento. French
patriotism is based upon the principles of the French Revolution and
the upheavals of 1848 which followed it. An atmosphere of
petty - nationalism and xenophobia also fuels the flames of
justification
for the two destructive world wars which decimated Europe. Revolution
and conflict is based on the struggle between diametrically - opposed
ideas or economies, not upon racial or national antagonism. Evola
suggests that Frederick I, for example, fought against the Italians
because he saw it as his imperial duty and not because he simply
happened to despise the Italian people or wished to subvert them to his
will. Ironically enough, Frederick was committed to the
re - establishment of Roman law and many Italians even fought alongside
him. This completely demolishes the idea that the aforementioned
episodes in Italian history were somehow "patriotic." The importance of
struggle is characterised by the idea and not by the perceived national
loyalties of those involved. Think of those Englishmen who fought in
Hitler's SS, for example, or the Muslims who travelled from
around the
world in order to fight against the Americans in modern - day
Afghanistan. The "traditions" of those who are committed to the
obliteration of the ancient world, then, are highly questionable and -
at the very least - intrinsically selective.
By charting the progress of the Italian Renaissance through to its
logical conclusion, the so - called Enlightenment, Evola demonstrates
that "in the same sense in which Renaissance Italy becomes the mother
of geniuses and artists, it also becomes the forerunner of subversion.
And just as the communes represent the first rebellion against an
alleged political despotism, the civilisation of the Renaissance
likewise represents the 'discovery of man' and of freedom of the spirit
in the creative individual, as well as the principle of the
intellectual emancipation that constitutes the 'basis of human
progress'." The Risorgimento is not dissimilar in that it represented a
paradoxical alliance between Masonry and patriotism: "The
representatives of what at the time was still traditional Europe
regarded liberalism and Mazzinianism in the same way as
today's liberal
and democratic parties regard communism; the truth is that the
subversive intentions of the former were not much different from the
latter's, the main difference being that liberalism and
Mazzinianism
employed the national and patriotic myth at the early stages of the
disintegrating action." The Risorgimento, therefore, was a
pseudo - tradition and at the very root of its secret machinations lay
the destruction of Tradition itself. The Carbonari was not fighting
"Austria" at all, it was engaged in a bitter attempt to topple the
Austrian dynasty and, thus, one of the final vestiges of Tradition in
Europe. But this is not to suggest that the House of Austria had an
impeccable track record. On the contrary, along with Russia and Germany
its primary importance lay in opposing the rise of liberalism and
modernism. This is demonstrated by the spirit of unity which permeates
a letter sent to Wilhelm I by Bismarck in 1887: "The struggle today is
not so much between Russians, Germans, Italians, and French, but rather
between revolution and monarchy. The Revolution has conquered France,
affected England, and is strong in Italy and in Spain. There are only
three emperors who can oppose it... An eventual future war will have
less the character of a war between governments, but more so that of a
war of the red flag against the elements of order and preservation."
Beneath the surface of all dynasties, churches and governments, of
course, lie the denizens of the single idea and the common struggle. A
contemporary example on a far smaller scale, perhaps, is the tactical
support offered by Alexander Dugin's eurasianists to Vladimir
Putin's
government. The main point of this chapter, however, is the undermining
of the popular fantasies which surround national "traditions." Once we
can stop focusing on the kind of nationalism served up by the
historicists, therefore, it will be easier to accept the validity of an
Idea.
9. MILITARY STYLE -
'MILITARISM' - WAR
Evola tells us that militarism is the enemy of democracy. This
divergence of beliefs came about as soon as economics had replaced
things like Prussianism and the Order of Teutonic Knights. Modern
democracy, having originated in England, has led to the rise of a
society in which "the primary element is the bourgeois type and the
bourgeois life during times of peace; such a life is dominated by the
physical concern for safety, well - being, and material wealth, with
the
cultivation of letters and the arts serving as a decorative frame." It
is the bourgeoisie who are presently in control of the State and,
despite the absence of a militaristic spirit in modern society,
whenever an "international crisis" looms on the horizon they have no
qualms about using militaristic techniques in order to advance their
own interests. This is precisely the same form of shameless hypocrisy
which usually regards warfare as "something materialistic and
soulless." But Evola makes a distinction between the soldier and the
warrior. Indeed, whilst the former is a paid mercenary who sees warfare
purely as a means of self - enrichment, the latter is a specific
aristocratic caste which is altogether superior to the bourgeoisie. In
the present atmosphere soldiers are used to maintain "the peace,"
although in reality capitalism uses its Establishment shock - troops to
crush its opponents and maintain its own position on the economic
ladder. This means that the mercenary is employed by the merchant
class, rather than a warrior caste "with its own spirituality, values,
and ethics" playing an active role in the nature of the State. But
Evola is not suggesting that "the military must manage the affairs of
the State... but rather that virtues, disciplines, and feelings of a
military type acquire pre - eminence and a superior dignity over
everything that is of a bourgeois type." Furthermore, he does not
believe in the control of one's everyday affairs by a
military clique:
"Love for hierarchy; relationships of obedience and command; courage;
feelings of honour and loyalty; specific forms of active impersonality
capable of producing anonymous sacrifice; frank and open relationships
from man to man, from one comrade to another, from leader to follower -
all these are the characteristic living values that are predominant in
the aforementioned view." Evola follows this up by explaining that
external warfare compliments that occurring within the self. This is
the spiritual battle which is waged by the individual in defiance of
his own shortcomings, described by Evola in Revolt Against
the Modern World as
the "big holy war" and the "little holy war"; a jihad which is fought
upon two fronts. This also has important similarities to the Hermetic
concept "as above, so below." War against one's enemies is a
macrocosm
of that taking place within the individual. For the man who is born to
be a warrior, this kind of asceticism becomes a way of life. It is not
a form of mindless violence in which death and destruction become the
central pillars of one's very existence, it is "the calm,
conscious,
and planned development of the inner being and a code of ethics; love
of distance; hierarchy; order; the faculty of subordinating the
emotional and individualistic element of one's self to higher
goals and
principles, especially in the name of honour and beauty." Herein lies
the difference between the soldier and the warrior.
The decline of the warrior ethos, according to Evola, is due to the
fact that democracies have diminished the importance of the political
in favour of the social. Previously, of course, Evola had referred to
the Mannerbund or all - male fraternity. Without this vital heroic
element, the modern State has inevitably become very inferior when
compared to those of the past like Sparta. Western society is now in
the hands of the bourgeoisie and lacks that key ingredient of
atmospheric tension which acts as a safeguard against complacency and
deterioration. Evola is not implying that warfare and struggle are
eternal concepts, but simply that the individual must seek out the
active life in opposition to the pacifism and decay that comes with
"peace." Therefore "the nations in which such premises are sufficiently
realised will be not only the ones better prepared for war, but also
the ones in which war will acquire a higher meaning." By sheer
contrast, the democracies now claim to be fighting against war itself
and use a force of their own in a purely defensive capacity. The ranks
of those who fight however, are filled not with the bourgeoisie but
with the paid mercenaries of the army and police. These soldiers do not
fight for an idea or a higher principle, but for "material well -
being,
economic prosperity, a comfortable and conformist existence based on
one's work, productivity, sports, movies, and sexuality."
Modern
warfare is also based upon the war of the machine, rather than on the
physical or spiritual combat of warriors. This leads to a complex and
technological manifestation of the heroic ideal, rather than offering
the prospective warrior a just cause for which to fight. Evola attacks
the manipulative propaganda and lies which have been used throughout
the process of modern warfare, something which leads to the
relativisation and systematic repackaging of the "cause" itself. But
what does Evola say about the attitude and motivation of the true
warrior?: "A warrior tradition and a pure military tradition do not
have hatred as the basis of war. The need to fight and even to
exterminate another people may be acknowledged, but this does not
entail hatred, anger, animosity, and contempt for the enemy. All these
feelings, for a true soldier, are degrading: in order to fight he need
not be motivated by such lowly feelings, nor be energised by
propaganda, smoky rhetoric and lies." These elements have only come to
the fore since the natural warrior caste was replaced by an army of
enlisted mercenaries drawn from the ranks of society at large.
Mussolini once wrote about the spirit of the trenches in which class
divisions were eradicated in the name of a common cause, but Evola
believes that today the masses have to be deceived before they will
agree to fight for the ruling class. Modern conflicts are irrational,
too, in that they are artificially constructed in order to justify the
ever - increasing expansion of capitalism. The wars of the past were
quite different, in that they had a sovereign quality as the necessary
determining force for the deployment of what Evola describes as
"[c]learly defined goals." Perhaps the antithesis of the just war is
the very irrationalism which lies at the core of the ultimate form of
modern combat we know today as nuclear war.
10. TRADITION -
CATHOLICISM - GHIBELLINISM
Catholicism is perceived by many to be the pinnacle of Tradition.
Evola accepts that it contains many Traditional aspects, but goes on to
say that in order to be seen as a legitimate form of authority and
sovereignty it must become fully integrated within the sphere of
Tradition itself. Catholicism alone is inadequate and represents only a
minimal current of a far wider Tradition. Here, Evola opts to discuss
the implications of this fact in both a political and contemporary
context, despite using examples from the past.
Religion falls into various categories and cannot match the supreme
and unitary nature of Tradition. In fact religion is simply an exoteric
version of a deeper, esoteric undercurrent. Christianity, for example,
panders to the masses, whilst Tradition is reserved for the spiritual
elite: "In effect, nobody with a higher education can really believe in
the axiom 'There is no salvation outside the Church' (nulla salus extra
ecclesiam), meaning the great civilisations that have preceded
Christianity (the still - existing millennia - old non - European
traditions,
such as Buddhism and Hinduism, and even relatively recent ones such as
Islam) have not known the supernatural or the sacred, but only
distorted images and obscure 'prefigurations' and that they amount to
mere 'paganism', polytheism, and 'natural mysticism'." This statement
would undoubtedly arouse in the more "traditional" Catholic a feeling
of revulsion and anger, perhaps even accusations of "ecumenicalism."
However, Evola is not advocating the unification of all religions, but
the acceptance that there is a common Tradition which lies in each. He
goes on to say that for a Catholic "to persist in the sectarian and
dogmatic exclusivism about this matter would amount to being in the
same predicament of one who wished to defend the views of physics and
astronomy found in the Old Testament, which have been made obsolete by
the current state of knowledge on these matters." Catholicism, then, is
only "traditional" in the sense that certain aspects tend to accord
with Tradition itself. The same can be said of Islam or Judaism.
We now turn our attention to the centuries - old debate concerning
Catholicism and Ghibellinism. The Ghibellines (like their Guelph
rivals) were a political force in northern and central Italy between
the twelfth and fifteenth centuries. These opposing groups began in
Germany as partisans in a struggle for the throne of the Holy Roman
Empire between two dynastic houses: the Welfs on the one hand (who were
dukes of Saxony and Bavaria), and the Hohenstaufens on the other (who
were rulers of Swabia). During the thirteenth century the Welf leader,
Otto of Brunswick, was involved in a fratricidal struggle for the
imperial crown against Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, and the all -
German
battle soon moved south to Italy. The name Guelph is derived from Welf,
whilst Ghibelline is a corruption of Waiblingen, an area of land
belonging to the emperors of Hohenstaufen. According to the Ghibelline
view of the world, as elucidated by Evola, "the Empire was an
institution of supernatural origin and character, like the Church. It
had its own sacred nature, just as, during the Middle Ages, the dignity
of the kings themselves had an almost priestly nature (kingship being
established through a rite that differed only in minor detail from
Episcopal ordination). On this basis, the Ghibelline emperors - who
were the representatives of a universal and supranational idea,
embodying a lex animata in terris (a living law on earth) - opposed the
hegemonic claims of the clergy and claimed to have only God above
themselves." The struggle between the Ghibellines and the clergy is
usually discussed in political terms, but was actually a form of
spiritual combat waged at the very highest level. Humanity, during the
medieval period, was caught between two distinct paths: action and
contemplation. Evola tells us that this relates to the Empire and the
Church respectively: "Ghibellinism more or less claimed that through
the view of earthly life as discipline, militia, and service, the
individual can be led beyond himself and reach the supernatural
culmination of human personality through action and under the aegis of
the Empire. This was related to the character of a non - naturalistic
but
'providential' institution acknowledged in the Empire; knighthood and
the great knightly Orders stood in relation to the empire in the same
way in which the clergy and the ascetic Orders stood in relation to the
Church." This sounds like an analogy of the political soldier, but
Evola is keen to demonstrate that such Orders "were based on an idea
that was less political than ethical - spiritual, and partially even
ascetic, according to an asceticism that was not cloistered and
contemplative, but rather of a warrior type. In this last regard, the
most typical example was constituted by the Order of Knights Templar,
and in part by the Order of the Teutonic Knights." This subject is
discussed at length in Evola's Revolt Against The Modern
World, during
which the author explained how the Emperor waged a calculated holy war
against the pro - Guelphist clergy and how even the Crusades became an
active consolidation of the imperial idea; just as the Empire had been
in times of peace. The Ghibellines, he said, were engaged in an occult
struggle "against papal Rome that was waged by Rome itself" (p.300).
Indeed, the head of the Church is known as pontifex maximus; a title
which is taken directly from the leaders of early Rome. Indeed,
according to Evola the Emperor Julian opposed Christianity due to its
"upholding of an anarchical doctrine; with the excuse of paying homage
to God alone, they refused to give him homage in the person of those
who, as legitimate leaders of men, were his representatives on earth
and drew from him the principle of their power. This, according to
Celsus, was an example of impiety."
Evola's whole point is that in ancient times the religious
clergy
were answerable to the Emperor himself; not simply from a political
perspective, but also in a theological capacity: "It was only during
the Middle Ages that the priest nourished the ambition, not of being
king, but of being the one to whom kings are subject. At that time,
Ghibellinism arose as a reaction, and the rivalry was rekindled, the
new reference point now being the authority and the right reclaimed by
the Holy Roman Empire." But this does not presuppose that religion must
be at the service of the State like those of "a Masonic, anti -
clerical
character," on the contrary, this leads to totalitarianism and the
Concordats which were conveniently arranged in both Nazi Germany and
Fascist Italy. The separation of the spiritual and political spheres is
epitomised by the Christian maxim "render unto Caesar what is
Caesar's
and unto God what is God's," something which was quite
unknown in
ancient times. Needless to say, throughout history the Catholic Church
has played a very large role in secular affairs by using politics as a
mere wing of the religious establishment. Although in the later Middle
Ages the Church did recognise the divine right of kings, Evola
considers these "atheistic" monarchs to have been at the forefront of
the liberal ideas which later found expression in the French Revolution
of 1789. Once the State had vacated the domain of the spirit and become
secular, however, it turned against the Church. But this was different
to the rebellion of the Ghibellines, because this current "did not
pursue the subjection of spiritual authority to temporal powers, but
rather upheld, vis - Ю - vis the exclusivist claim of the Church, a
value
and a right for the State, different from those that are proper to an
organisation with a merely human and material character." However, lest
one wrongly imagine that Evola somehow wishes to revive the Ghibelline
struggle against the Church, the author carefully points out that the
key point is to resist the secular State in all its forms. Only in this
way can politics be ascribed to a higher level.
Catholicism today is in great decline. Not least because it is
always forced to compromise with the prevailing ideologies among which
it finds itself. Liberalism is gradually eroding the last vestiges of
Catholic tradition in the same way that it is eating away at the
edifice of Tradition in general. The likes of the Protestant
Reformation and Vatican II have taken their toll, and we now see
modernist popes tolerating bastardised currents like Liberation
Theology, supporting the burgeoning New World Order and kneeling before
the might of International Zionism. Evola tells us that "the decline of
the modern Church is undeniable because she gives to social and moral
concerns a greater weight that what pertains to the supernatural life,
to asceticism, and to contemplation, which are essential reference
points of religiosity." It is certainly not fulfilling any kind of
meaningful role, either: "For all practical purposes, the main concerns
of Catholicism today seem to turn it into a petty bourgeois moralism
that shuns sexuality and upholds virtue, or an inadequate paternalistic
welfare system. In these times of crisis and emerging brutal forces,
the Christian faith should devote itself to very different tasks." In
the medieval period the Church possessed a more traditional character,
but only due to the fact that it had appropriated so many Classical
elements and, by way of Aristotle, lashed them firmly to the
theological mast being constructed by Thomas Aquinas during the
thirteenth century. Catholicism, however, will never reconcile itself
with the problem of how to deal with politics and the State because it
relies upon separation and dualism. Tradition, on the other hand, is
integralist and unitary.
Evola notes that certain individuals and groups have sought to
incorporate the more traditional aspects of Catholicism within the
broader and far more encompassing sphere of Tradition itself.
Evola's
French philosophical counterpart, Rene Guenon, for example. Catholics,
however, are far too dogmatic and would merely seek to make Tradition
"conform" to their own spiritual weltanschauung. This, says Evola, is
"placing the universal at the service of the particular." Furthermore,
of course, the anti - modernists who are organised in groups such as
The
Society of St. Pius X and the Sedavacantist fraternity do not speak
with the full weight and authority of the Church. They are, therefore,
powerless because "the direction of the Church is a descending and
anti - traditional one, consisting of modernisation and coming to terms
with the modern world, democracy, socialism, progressivism, and
everything else. Therefore, these individuals are not authorised to
speak in the name of Catholicism, which ignores them, and should not
try to attribute to Catholicism a dignity the latter spurns." Evola
suggests that because the Church is so inadequate, it should be
abandoned and left to its ultimate doom. He concludes by reiterating
the fact that a State which does not have a spiritual dimension is not
a State at all. The only way forward, he argues, is to "begin from a
pure idea, without the basis of a proximate historical reference" and
await the actualisation of the Traditional current.
11. REALISM - COMMUNISM -
ANTI - BOURGEOISIE
Intellectuals are often attracted to communism because it claims to
be anti - bourgeois, despite communism itself claiming to despise the
intellectual for his bourgeois origins. According to Evola, however,
this is misleading and such people are deluding themselves. Evola also
accepts that the word "bourgeois" relates to far more than economics;
something representing a specific cultural niche in which everything is
"empty, decadent, and corrupt." The role of the traditionalist must be
to overcome these materialist concepts. Indeed, the perennial
attraction of communism indicates that it would be a big mistake to
combat Marxist values with a "bourgeois mentality and spirit, with its
conformism, psychological and romantic appendices, moralism, and
concerns for a petty, safe existence in which a fundamental materialism
finds its compensation in sentimentality and the rhetoric of the great
humanitarian and democratic worlds - all this has only an artificial,
peripheral, and precarious life." This is why conservatism has always
been so ineffective, and why the adoption of a true anti - bourgeois
spirit is so essential in the ongoing replenishment of Tradition. For
Evola, the solution lies in realism.
In its efforts to overcome the unreality of bourgeois society,
Marxism simply relegates the individual to an even lower level. This
results in the systematic spawning of homo economicus, a process in
which "we go toward what is below rather than above the person." It
represents a collective reduction of the human type, rather than a
raising of the individual consciousness. So how does Evola's
realism
differ from the kind of "neo - realism" advocated by left - wing
philosophers such as Sartre? The latter, of course, brings human
existence into line with transient concepts such as psychoanalysis.
This is achieved by creating a kind of psycho - collectivisation,
whereby
man's various personality traits are said to originate from
below.
Evola, on the other hand, accepts "that existence acquires a meaning
only when it is inspired by something beyond itself." Therefore the
political, economic and psychological aspects of Marxism are identical
and adhere to a decidedly false sense of "realism."
Given the confusion which has been generated by the Marxists and
their misleading interpretation of "realism," perhaps another solution
is needed to counteract the unreality of the bourgeoisie; one which
seeks to go higher, rather than lower? Evola explains: "It is possible
to keep a distance from everything that has only a human and especially
subjectivist character; to feel contempt for bourgeois conformism and
its petty selfishness and moralism; to embody the style of an
impersonal activity; to prefer what is essential and real in a higher
sense, free from the trappings of sentimentalism and from
pseudo - intellectual super - structures - and yet all this must be
done by
remaining upright, feeling the presence in life of that which leads
beyond life, drawing from it precise norms of behaviour and action."
This means that a new breed of individuals must bear the task of
combining strong anti - Marxism with a committed opposition to
bourgeois
society: "Lenin himself said that a proletarian, left to himself, tends
to become a bourgeois." It is therefore not necessary to become a
communist in order to reject the trappings of conformity and sterility,
although the shortcomings of Fascism and its well - documented reliance
upon the bourgeoisie suggests that it, too, is incapable of providing
real solutions to the problem. Evola also notes that "[e]ven those who
call themselves monarchists can only conceive of a bourgeois king."
I have already discussed how communists harbour an ironic grudge
towards the intellectual, but Evola demonstrates that the only answer
to the intellectual/anti - intellectual debate is to put forward a
third
option: the Weltanschauung, or worldview. This is
"based not on
books, but on an inner form and a sensibility endowed with an innate,
rather than acquired, character." In other words, a mentality which
does not remain fixed in the mind or submerged in theories, but
realised in a more practical sense through the deployment of the will.
Thought alone is incapable of taking on a life of its own or
significantly changing anything. Here we return to the traditional idea
of an organic civilisation which is expressed not by culture, but
through a deeper understanding of eternal values. Thus, intellectualism
and culture are merely used to express the more fundamental worldview,
not designed to evolve into determining characteristics of humanity in
their own right: "this is sheer illusion: never before as in modern
times was there such a number of men who are spiritually formless, and
thus open to any suggestion and ideological intoxication, so as to
become dominated by psychic currents (without being aware of it in the
least) and of manipulations belonging to the intellectual, political,
and social climate in which they live." The worldview of which Evola
speaks, of course, is Tradition. This represents the basic impetus
which must beat firmly within the heart of all those who wish to bring
to an end the contaminating era of the bourgeoisie.
12. ECONOMY &
POLITICS - CORPORATIONS - UNITY OF WORK
In Chapter 6, Evola attacked mankind's dependence upon the
economy
and suggested that change must come from within. In this chapter, the
author presents an alternative economic plan by which the forces of
anti - Tradition can be kept at bay. Recalling the fact that the State
represents "an idea and a power," Evola has little hesitation in
rendering it superior to the economic sphere. This is because he feels
that the State is endowed with an overriding spiritual perspective and
that it is there to both guide and judge all economic concepts,
although this does cause one to wonder whether such power and authority
can be expressed in an non - statist context. Especially in light of
the
seemingly irredeemable nature of the world's states today and
the fact
that no one State can last forever.
Evola's solution to the economic crisis - as well as the fact
that
it needs to be brought in line with Tradition - is a form of
corporativism "based on the principles of competence, qualification,
and natural hierarchy, with the overall system characterised by a style
of active impersonality, selflessness, and dignity." This opinion has
been formed by the author's self - confessed admiration for the
craft
guilds of the Middle Ages and, before them, the Roman system of
proto - corporativism. He rightly points out that the medieval artisan
had a great love for his work, unlike the contemporary wage - slave who
labours under great strain and duress. Evola goes into this concept in Revolt
Against The Modern World,
too, contesting that work only becomes slavery once it is viewed as a
laborious task. It is also a fact that one's adherence to a
common
objective gives even the most seemingly ordinary task a higher degree
of significance: "The commitment of the workers was matched by the
master of the art's competence, care, and knowledge; by their
effort to
strengthen and to raise the quality of the overall corporate unit; and
by their protecting and upholding the code of honour of their
corporation." Issues such as capitalist exploitation were unheard of,
at least until the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Corporativism is usually regarded as a Fascist objective, but Evola
argues that it cannot work under such a system because Fascism itself
continues to tolerate the trade unions. This means that the class
system is still being perpetuated and thus the unitary whole is
threatened with division. After all, what use are trade unions if
everyone is pulling in the same direction? The workers'
co - operative is
another example of just how redundant trade unionism has become. Evola
also believes that Fascism and Marxism fail to "reconstitute" the
unifying concept of work itself, seeking to replace class division with
a series of bureaucratic ministries. German National - Socialism,
however, was more successful than Italian Fascism because "it
understood that what mattered most was to achieve that organic
solidarity of entrepreneurs and workers within the companies, promoting
a down - sizing that reflected to a certain degree the spirit of
traditional corporativism." Evola is praising the fact that German
bosses took a more hands - on approach to the question of leadership,
and
it is a fact that the German civil service, for example, remained
exactly the same after Hitler's ascension to the throne of
German
politics. So it was a change of attitude, rather than a profound
economic change of any kind. But I feel that Evola's
enthusiasm is
slightly misplaced, particularly as Hitler's economic drive
was geared
towards putting the country on a total war footing and that the NSDAP
itself had been financed by German Big Business.
So what is necessary for this proposed shift in attitude? Evola
advocates "the deproletarianisation of the worker and, on the other
hand, the elimination of the worst type of capitalist, who is a
parasitical recipient of profits and dividends and who remains
extraneous to the productive process." Evola therefore accepts that
such despicable creatures have become easy targets for communist
agitators, and that capitalism itself must be vigorously opposed by
those who wish to transcend both systems. Evola believes that
capitalists should become more involved with their businesses, rather
than sitting at home counting their shekels and raking in the profits.
But this will not alter the fact that they will continue to own the
means of production, so perhaps Evola is being more than a little
optimistic when it comes to "loyal workers who are free from trade
union control and are proud to belong to his company."
We are then introduced to what Evola believes to be the ideal
relationship between the State and the economy. Again, modern
conditions and the servile nature of industrial capitalism are
identified as being the main obstacles to a more healthy attitude
towards work. He feels that the real problem lies in the way an
employee is "inclined to regard his work as mere necessity and his
performance as a product sold to a third party in exchange for the
highest possible remuneration." Work, he argues, must cease to be
monotonous, repetitive and dull. Furthermore, workers must have "the
right of co - direction, co - management, and co - determination" that
is
presently lacking in the majority of occupations. These sentiments
appear to echo the co - operative ideas of Robert Owen and the Rochdale
Pioneers, which took shape during the nineteenth century. In other
words, workers must have a real stake in the business concerned, rather
than be considered as a mere cog in the capitalist machine: "This would
be the best way to 'integrate' the individual
worker into his company,
motivate him and raise him above his most immediate interest as a mere
rootless individual. In this way we could reproduce in a
company's life
the type of organic belonging that was proper to the ancient
corporative formations." This microcosmic representation of the State
within the field of economics all sounds very well, although one must
remember that any economic idea that plans to attach itself to the
present economic system must inevitably rise and fall in accordance
with the very system itself. The West is dying. This means, therefore,
that all solutions which advocate forms of participation within the
current system - including distributist guilds and workers'
co - operatives - merely represent a temporary postponement of the
inevitable crash. The real solution lies on the periphery.
Evola criticises the politicisation of the workplace by trade
unionists, a process which - he believes - only serves to divide,
confuse and worsen the lot of the average worker. This activity, he
contends, is used as a springboard from which to attack the State. I
believe that Evola is right to condemn Marxist interference, but wrong
to suppose that the industrial sphere can ever be reformed. In the
words of Nietzsche: "That which is falling must also be pushed."
Indeed, the vast majority of our fatcat executives are hardly likely to
admit to their shortcomings and start expressing the type of leadership
and initiative which Evola believes will transform the very nature of
the economy. I believe that Evola is being just as idealistic as the
Fascists and the Marxists. The decline of the West is inevitable, and,
in terms of having run its civilisational course, will represent the
completion of the Kali Yuga and thus the very end of the macrocosmic
cycle.
But the author does accept that modern companies cannot be truly
autonomous within the present economic climate, because "[n]o matter
how powerful and wide - ranging they are, these companies must deal
with
forces and monopolies that control to a large degree the fundamental
elements of the productive process." Evola believes that certain
restraints have to be placed upon the ruthlessly competitive sharks of
international capitalism, but his solution to the problem merely
involves increasing the power and authority of the State. He also
believes that such a State can be created within a modern context, but
thirty years after Evola's death this seems very unlikely. He
also
suggests that capitalists should be "ostracised" by the State, but
surely this is impossible given that the State itself is little more
than an elaborate front for the interests of Big Business and
international finance? Evola's fear of leftist subversion
means that he
is forced to accept a kind of pallid reformism or - in his words - a
"revolution from above" (a concept not dissimilar to the "revolution of
the centre" proposed by French fascists and elements of the Nouvelle
Droit), when in reality he should be supporting the emergence of new
centres of Tradition on the periphery. After all, as the Romanian
author Mircea Eliade demonstrated in The Myth of the Eternal
Return (Princeton, 1991) the founding of new symbolic
centres is perfectly in tune with Tradition.
The feudal system is cited as a worthy example of economic autonomy
and unitary collaboration between the various complimentary sections of
medieval society, although he does suggest that it needs updating so
that it can be applied in a modern setting. The overriding atmosphere
of defensive perpetuity and the bonds of loyalty which characterised
the feudal period are said by Evola to have strengthened both
responsibility and decentralisation. Despite the intermittent
shortcomings of feudalism, it is pretty hard to deny the fact that it
had many worthy attributes. On the other hand, however, Evola still
fails to prove that anything remotely similar can be re - established
today. At least at the centre and within the current economic system.
Likewise, Evola believes that the traditional caste structure can also
be reapplied to the modern State: "The ultimate goal of the corporative
idea, understood in this fashion, is to effectively elevate the lower
activities concerned with production and material concerns to the plane
that in a qualitative hierarchy comes immediately after the economic
one in an ascending direction; in the system of ancient or functional
castes, this plane was that of the warrior caste, which ranked higher
than the merchant caste and the workers' caste." Up until
very
recently, the caste system was still in operation throughout India (and
still prevails in the more rural areas of the North), but modern
government legislation has resulted in the lower castes (Untouchables)
receiving positive discrimination and other liberal reforms designed to
create the kind of "egalitarianism" that we are used to seeing in the
West. The caste system is a highly complex and functional system and
has been around for many thousands of years, but I doubt whether it can
be applied to a modern society. Only by establishing centres on the
periphery can traditional methods be realised in the modern world.
Evola's comments about caste and hierarchy are extremely
valid, but the
process of degeneration can never be reversed at the centre.
The author also suggests that a Corporate House of Representatives
be created. Not something which is managed in a bureaucratic manner
like that administered previously by Italian Fascism, but a system in
which everything finds its true level in relation to everything else.
At the same time, it "should not have the traits of a political
assembly. It should merely constitute the Lower House; political
concerns would be dealt with in an Upper House, ranked above the
former." Again, Evola remains strongly opposed to political
interference within the sphere of socio - economic activity. But even
his
"Lower House" sounds rather bureaucratic once it is compared to a basic
workers' co - operative, although the objective here is
obviously to
unite all such concerns into a single, unitary whole. Modern - day
Libya
has a similar arrangement in that its professional, educational and
various other categories are united within a series of congresses. Not
that Evola would agree, of course, with the fact that real power and
authority in Libya's "state of the masses" emanates from
below, rather
than from above.
13. OCCULT WAR - WEAPONS
OF THE OCCULT WAR
And now we come to one of the most interesting chapters of the
book, in which Evola questions whether the various areas of human
existence have been affected by higher forces. In other words, by those
of the supernatural or occult dimension. The decline of the West, in
particular, is said to be a direct result of the hidden forces at work.
Evola explains: "The occult war is a battle that is waged imperceptibly
by the forces of global subversion, with means and in circumstances
ignored by current historiography. The notion of occult war belongs to
a three - dimensional view of history: this view does not regard as
essential the two superficial dimensions of time and space (which
include causes, facts, and visible leaders) but rather emphasises the
dimension of depth, or the 'subterranean' dimension
in which forces and
influences act in a decisive manner, and which, more often than not,
cannot be reduced to what is merely human, whether at an individual or
a collective level." This seems clear enough. Indeed, the current of
which Evola speaks transcends the governmental domain and concerns the
forces which lie far beyond the purely exoteric plane. By
"subterranean," Evola is alluding to the fact that such activity takes
place not within the human subconscious, but as part of a deliberate
plan which has been meticulously formed by capable and intelligent
agents of subversion. But this third dimension should not be seen as
some kind of ridiculous or convenient fantasy designed to account for
the erosion of Tradition, it is a concept which is fully steeped in
reality. Catholics regard the decline of traditional values and the
onset of liberalism and moral decline as part of a divinely
orchestrated process, although Evola believes that such a view need not
rely on abstract metaphysics or theology. He cites the Classical idea
in which the forces of the cosmos are waged against the forces of
chaos: "To the former corresponds everything that is form, order, law,
spiritual hierarchy, and tradition in the highest sense of the word; to
the latter correspond every influence that disintegrates, subverts,
degrades, and promotes the predominance of the inferior over the
superior, matter over spirit, quantity over quality."
History undoubtedly has a more secretive side. Indeed, at times it
becomes impossible to explain certain aspects in terms of their
possessing a basic or fundamental causality. Evola is careful to warn
against inventing ridiculous or fantastical notions to account for this
more covert analysis of history: "The fact that those who have ventured
in this direction have not restrained their wild imaginations has
discredited what could have been a science, the results of which can
hardly be overestimated. This too meets the expectations of the hidden
enemy." Evola then mentions Disraeli's well - known
nineteenth - century
admission, concerning the unseen forces that govern the world and
create the necessary conditions for their own pernicious advancement.
This brings us on to one of the most famous - or infamous - documents
of all time, The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion,
in
which it is alleged that a secret Jewish cabal is intent on world
domination. Evola does not defend its authenticity, however, he agrees
with Rene Guenon that secret organisations of this nature are not
likely to write everything down in great detail and that - similar to
the conclusions expressed in Professor Cohn's Warrant
For Genocide - it was probably a Tsarist police conspiracy.
But he does go on to say
that "the only important and essential point is the following: this
writing is part of a group of texts that in various ways (more or less
fantastic and at times even fictional) have expressed the feeling that
the disorder of recent times is not accidental, since it corresponds to
a plan, the phases and fundamental instruments of which are accurately
described in the Protocols." But what of the contention that the
individuals behind the conspiracy are apparently Jews: "One of the
means employed by the occult forces to protect themselves consists of
directing their opponents' attention towards those who are
only
partially responsible for certain upheavals, thus concealing the rest
of the story, namely a wide sequence of causes."
Evola also discounts the theory that the conspiracy is being waged
by agents of the Judaic religion, particularly as the occult forces
themselves inspired the Renaissance, Darwinism and other rationalist
developments which fly directly in the face of such principles. The
fact that Israeli troops can often be seen battling in the streets of
Jerusalem with fanatical Zionist rabbis also demonstrates that the
hidden powers cannot possibly be genuinely connected to Judaism. The
Protocols also allege that Judaism is working in close allegiance with
Freemasonry, although Evola only accepts that the foundation of the
Grand Lodge of London in 1717 brought it into line with the grand plan
of subversion. This is correct. Masons on the European mainland differ
significantly from their English cousins and many associated with the
Grand Orient look upon Egypt as being the traditional fount of ancient
knowledge and wisdom, rather than to specifically Jewish sources. This
is reflected in the absence of the Memphis-Mithraim rite from the
practices of the Grand Lodge. But at the same time, however,
Judaeo-Masonry has often been used as a vehicle for global subversion
and Evola compares this process with the regression of the caste
system. When the rot gradually sets in at the very top, it tends to
infect the whole body and thus sets off a new chain of events.
Furthermore, "[r]egardless of the role played by Jews and Masonry in
the modern subversion, it is necessary to recognise clearly the real
historical context of their influence, as well as the limit beyond
which the occult war is destined to develop by employing forces that
not only are no longer those of Judaism and of Masonry, but that could
even totally turn against them."
Using some of Rene Guenon's ideas, Evola now attempts to
examine
some of the methods which are used by the global subversives. Firstly,
"scientific suggestion" is used in order to explain history purely in
terms of key events being influenced by political, social or economic
factors. Secondly, whenever the first method becomes impossible the
hidden forces decide to use the "tactic of replacement" instead. This
involves the dissemination of certain philosophical ideas which can be
used as a diversion for those events which defy a positivist
explanation. It functions as a means of preventing the intellectuals
from understanding the true nature of what is really going on in the
world. This leads us towards the third strategic category: the "tactic
of counterfeits." This latter stage is essentially designed to explain
away those factors of the conspiracy which unavoidably find their way
into the mainstream and cause a backlash. This development, according
to Evola, can often take the form of a Traditional reaction to the
degeneration of society, although the occult powers then use terms such
as "anachronism," "anti-history," "immobilism" and "regression" in
order to counteract this process and thus prevent their enemies from
winning popular support.
The fourth ploy is the "tactic of inversion," in which the enemy
concentrates its efforts on attacking the spiritual realm: "After
limiting the influence that could be exercised in this regard by
Christianity, through the spread of materialism and scientism, the
forces of global subversion have endeavoured to conveniently divert any
tendency towards the supernatural arising outside the dominant religion
and the limitation of its dogmas." This means that the individual is
encouraged to lose him or herself in shallow distractions such as
psychology and spiritualism, rather than try to advance in a truly
superior and supernatural way. Evola criticises the West's
distorted
analysis of Eastern mysticism, and the fact that the traditional wisdom
of the Orient has often been repackaged within Masonry or Theosophy and
forcibly reconciled with Western values. And, due to this process of
dilution, it has been easily torn to shreds by the secret denizens of
the conspiracy and thus laughably rejected as pure superstition.
Another method is the "tactic of ricochet," through which those
sympathetic to Tradition are falsely assured that by attacking the
remaining traditionalist structures they are somehow advancing their
own cause: "Those who do not realise what is going on and who, because
of material interests, attack Tradition in like-minded people sooner or
later must expect to see Tradition attacked in themselves, by
ricochet." Modern States, of course, use infiltration in order to sow
the seeds of ideological discord. This can lead to personality clashes,
greed and self-advancement at the expense of the very Idea itself.
The sixth category is the "scapegoat tactic," which results in the
targeting of individuals or groups which usually turn out to be mostly
blameless. The Protocols, for example, may seem fairly accurate when it
comes to identifying the Masons and the Jews as the source of all our
problems, but to scapegoat people to this extent is misleading and
unrealistic. The next step - the "tactic of dilution" - relates to the
use of nationalism as a means of bringing people down to a common
level, rather than of restoring true perspective and hierarchy. This
process "dilutes" the Traditional components inherent within
nationalistic ideas and redirects them in accordance with the
objectives of the secret powers. One method is the way in which
revolutionary nationalists have eroded all traces of that which
preceded their ascending to power, thus helping to bring down the final
vestiges of Tradition. Using an example from the psychoanalytical
sphere, Evola tells us that "[a]mong those who are capable of a healthy
discernment there has been a reaction against the coarsest forms of
this pseudo-science, which correspond to pure or 'orthodox'
Freudianism. The tactic of dilution was employed again; the formulation
and spread of a spiritualised psychoanalysis for more refined tastes
was furthered. The result was that those who react against Freud and
his disciples no longer do so against Jung, without realising that what
is at work here is the same inversion, though in a more dangerous form
because it is subtler, and a contaminating exegesis ventures more
decidedly into the domain of spirituality than in the case of Freud."
The next tactic is the "deliberate misidentification of a principle
with its representatives." In other words, confusing an idea or a
principle with those purporting to represent or advance it. This leads
to the defilement or devaluation of the idea itself. Evola's
final
evaluation of subversive tactics examines the concept of "replacing
infiltrations." This is when an idea or an institution has degenerated
so much that it becomes unrecognisable. One thinks of the comparative
emptiness of Grand Lodge Masonry when compared to its Grand Orient
rival, or the Church of England's systematic take-over by the
organised
homosexual lobby: "These forces, while leaving the appearances
unchanged, use the organisation for totally different purposes, which
at times may even be the opposite of those that were originally its
own."
Evola's solution to this multifarious problem involves a
Traditionalist awakening during which its most devoted adherents
realise the extent to which the battle is being waged on the occult
plane. However, he also accepts that we do not presently have the men
capable of fighting this disease.
14. LATIN CHARACTER -
ROMAN WORLD - MEDITERRANEAN SOUL
The historic tendency of the Italian people to react with hostility
towards Germanic culture is dismissed by Evola as a "misunderstanding,
for the most part caused by stereotypical phrases and superficial
ideas." The Italians, of course, prefer to depict themselves as being
distinctly Latin and Mediterranean. Evola - in a similar manner to that
of Benito Mussolini before him - questions the very idea of the Latin
character, suggesting that it relates more to art and literature than
race. Evola prefers the phrase "Romanic element," since it has a much
wider base and is formed by the Classical populations and languages
which comprised the Roman Empire. Therefore the Empire itself includes
the Germanic peoples, too. But whilst Evola is correct in this sense,
it is also true that the Romans themselves are obviously extremely
indebted to the Ancient Greeks and borrowed many of their ideas. So it
can, therefore, be said that Rome was actually forged from Hellenic
civilisation. Evola then goes on to deplore the revival of the
neo-Classical element during the Renaissance period, something which -
he believes - led to the celebration of the Graeco-Roman
world's most
degenerative stage rather than its earlier Age of Heroism.
The Latin peoples are not that distinct from their Germanic
neighbours at all. The language and racial characteristics of the
Mediterranean peoples, for example, are both derived from Indo-Aryan
origins: "a heroic-sacred world that was characterised by a strict
ethos, love of discipline and of a virile and dominating spiritual
attitude." The tide of anti-Germanic feeling that engulfed the
post-Roman world was propagated by the Catholic Church and its hatred
for the Ghibellines and, soon afterwards, by the rise of Luther and
Calvin. However, Evola points out that "in Germany, despite its being
mostly Protestant, the feelings of order, hierarchy, and discipline are
very strong, while in Italy, despite its being a Catholic country, all
this is present to a negligible degree, while individualism, disorder,
instinctiveness, and lack of discipline tend to prevail." He goes on to
suggest that, from a Faustian perspective, unlike a German, an Italian
would even be prepared to retract his agreement with the Devil. This is
certainly a very frank admission coming from an Italian, but it does
demonstrate that Evola's Germanophile brand of imperial
Tradition
completely transcends the petty squabbles which have dominated Europe
for so many centuries. Many of Evola's countrymen, it is
argued,
despised the German-Italian Axis which came to pass during the Second
World War: "All these people can be happy again, now that Italy has
returned to itself - the petty Italy of mandolins, museums, 'O Sole
Mio,' and the tourist industry (not to mention the democratic
quagmire
and the Marxist infection), having been 'liberated'
from the difficult
task of forming itself on the inscription of its highest traditions,
which must be described not as 'Latin', but as 'Roman'."
The book then switches its attention to one of the greatest taboos
of our age: that of Race. Evola is not interested in biological racism,
he notes that several more races exist within each general category; be
they black, yellow or white: "These elementary races are defined in
terms that are not merely biological and anthropological, but
psychological and spiritual as well. To each of the racial components
there correspond various dispositions, forms of sensibility, values,
and views of life which are also differentiated." Evola disputes the
fact that individuals belong to the same one race, explaining that each
contains differing strengths and weaknesses. In Germanic peoples it is
the Nordic element which seems to occupy the highest rung of the
ladder, something echoed by the Roman type among the Italians. So Evola
is basically suggesting that within each individual there is a dynamic
spark which is derived not from biological sources but from a more
spiritual tradition. Therefore the fact that racial nationalists seek
to incorporate all individuals within one solid bloc goes completely
against the Traditionalist worldview. Individuals of the same "race"
are markedly different, regardless of the seemingly common ancestry
which has been attributed to them by nineteenth-century scientists and
modern geneticists. In the midst of this racial conglomeration, of
course, lies the substance of the New Man. It is he who epitomises the
most superior quality of all.
One inferior facet which Evola believes to be detrimental to
the
superior Roman spirit, is the Mediterranean type. But what does the
term "Mediterranean" actually mean? The author tells us that it "merely
designates a space, or a geographical area in which very different
cultures and spiritual and racial powers often clashed or met, without
ever producing a typical civilisation." So, unlike the Roman spirit, it
can be said that the "Mediterranean" concept never came to fruition in
any meaningful sense. Furthermore, he says, "psychologists have tried
to define the Mediterranean type, not so much anthropologically, but in
terms of character and style. In these descriptions we can easily
recognise the other pole of the Italian soul, namely negative aspects
likewise found in the Italian people, that need to be rectified." Evola
then refers to the excitable persona, the sexual promiscuity, the vain
exhibitionism and the gesticulative hot-bloodedness of the
Mediterranean type, something quite unlike the "anonymous heroes" of
Rome. Herein, perhaps, lies the fundamental difference between the
Actor and the Act: "the best model to follow would be that of the
ancient race of Rome - the sober, austere, active style, free from
exhibitionism, measured, endowed with a calm awareness of
one's
dignity." The Roman spirit, therefore, is rather akin to the Indo-Aryan
concept of nobility. The Mediterranean soul, on the other hand, has a
'"tendency towards a restless, chaotic, and undisciplined
individualism. Politically speaking, this is the tendency that, after
asserting itself by fomenting struggles and constant quarrels, led the
Greek city-states to ruin." The solution, according to Evola, is to
awaken amongst the Italians a truly Roman - rather than Mediterranean -
ethos. This, he believes, will occur "in almost organic terms at the
end of dissolutive processes.
15. THE PROBLEM OF BIRTHS
This chapter deals with population growth. Evola postulates the
view that reducing the population would help us towards "a relaxation
and a decongestion that would limit every activist frenzy (first among
them, those that pertain to the overall power of the economy) and
greatly propitiate the return to normalcy, thanks to a new, wider, and
freer space." The Anarchist thinker, Richard Hunt, believes that such a
reduction can be achieved through implementing methods of birth control
and thus lead us towards a more natural society, although, given the
eventual collapse of internationalism capitalism, such a process would
surely happen naturally in the wake of widespread conflict and famine?
Evola, on the other hand, believes that "nothing is done about the
population explosion, because then man would have to act upon himself,
his prejudices and instincts." But he also criticises the purely
materialistic analysis as espoused by Malthus, because the worst thing
about population growth is not the increasing scarcity of resources but
the acceleration of production and the rampant capitalist economy: "The
result is an increasing enslavement of the individual and the reduction
of free space and of any autonomous movement in modern cities, swarming
as though in putrefaction with faceless beings of 'mass
civilisation'."
Evola explains that there is no safety in numbers, a slogan that has
become one of the watchwords of the modern epoch. Successful empires,
he argues, arise not from population growth but from the intuitiveness
and ability of an elite minority. Furthermore, geographical locations
which find themselves subject to a large-scale increase in population
soon run contrary to natural order: "The fact is that the inferior
races and the lower social strata are the most prolific" and inevitably
leads to "a fatal involution of the human race." Evola goes on to
explain that the movement of peoples for the purposes of cheap labour -
such as that presently taking place among those economic migrants
currently flooding into the British Isles - means that "the fatal
effects will be inner crises and social tensions representing manna
from heaven for the leaders of Marxist subversion." No wonder,
therefore, that we constantly see the likes of the Socialist Workers
Party campaigning on behalf of these so-called "refugees."
At this point Evola launches a fierce broadside against Catholic
opposition to birth control. He denies that procreation - which, in his
opinion, is derived from Jewish sources - should have a religious or
theological dimension, and believes that the Church is being
hypocritical when it comes to encouraging the use of the sexual urge to
create life: "In every other instance besides sex, the Church praises
and formally approves... the predominance of the intellect and will
over the impulses of the senses." Indeed, Catholicism does tend to
relegate the act of sexual union to the level of an animalistic act
which is considered necessary for procreation. Abstinence and celibacy,
says Evola, are far more in tune with asceticism and the pursuit of the
supernatural. At this stage in the debate, Evola has not even mentioned
the use of contraception or abortion, so I would therefore agree with
his alternative conclusions about the more sacred nature of chastity.
Birth control, he argues, is a bourgeois concept and the New Man "by
adopting an attitude of militant and absolute commitment, should be
ready for anything and almost feel that creating a family is a
'betrayal'; these men should live sine
impedimentis, without any ties
or limits to their freedom." This approach certainly makes sense, but I
also feel that there is a strong case for the perpetuation of the New
Man through the foundation of alternative, revolutionary-conservative
families which live in accordance with Tradition. Evola - inspired by
Nietzsche's idea that "men should be trained for war and
women for the
recreation of the warrior" - may indeed dismiss such a process as being
little more than a form of "heroism in slippers," but such families can
also act as a beacon and a source of inspiration for those warriors who
remain unbound. Evola has considered the idea of elitist families,
without doubt: "the example of those centuries-old religious orders
that embraced celibacy suggests that a continuity may be ensured with
means other than physical procreation. Besides those who should be
available as shock-troops, it would certainly be auspicious to form a
second group that would ensure the hereditary continuity of a chosen
and protected elite, as the counterpart of the transmission of a
political-spiritual tradition and worldview: ancient nobility was an
example of this." However, he remains very sceptical and considers the
revival of such an idea utopian because it would be difficult for a
father to have control over his offspring amid the turmoil of the West.
This is very true, but the increasing success of home-schooling in both
America and the British Isles does prove that it is realistically
possible to build a network of alternative families who reject the
materialism of the West itself.
Evola's solution is based upon the destruction of the
egalitarian
ideal and, perhaps more surprisingly, of adopting an open mind towards
the possibility of a third world war. Any future conflict which is
waged on such a vast scale would inevitably reduce the population, of
course, but I believe that with the increasing collaboration taking
place between the West and its subjugated puppet-states abroad, our
real hope lies in the gradual disintegration of the internationalist
system on the periphery. This process of detaching the children from
the nanny, for better or for worse, will undoubtedly lead to the
biggest death-toll the world has ever seen. Indeed, it will not be
invoked by birth control programmes or inspired by government policy,
it will actually lead to the removal of government itself.
16. FORM AND
PRESUPPOSITIONS OF A UNITED EUROPE
According to the author, support "for a united Europe is strongly
felt in various mileus today. It is necessary to distinguish where this
need is upheld on a merely material and pragmatic level from those
situations in which the issue is posited at a higher level, emphasising
spiritual and traditional values." Given the huge attention that the
idea of a united Europe has attracted during the last few decades, this
chapter should be of interest to a great many people. During the period
in which this book was written, Europe was entrenched in the Cold War
and firmly divided between the superpowers of the USA and USSR. Evola,
therefore, believes that - despite its decidedly economic agenda - the
creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) was a logical
development. Evola then pours scorn upon the ideas of Jean Thiriart
who, during his lifetime, sought to create a European empire of more
than 400 million people. Thiriart arrived at this figure by including
the populations of Eastern Europe, which at that time were under Soviet
control. According to Evola, the fact that the communist economies of
Russia and China have an influence upon the outcome of any militaristic
strategy renders the whole plan obsolete. The solution, says Evola, is
firstly to withdraw from the United Nations (UN) - which, perhaps, is
easier said than done - and then to reject the Soviet Union as much as
America. Again, we are talking about the situation which existed during
the period in which Evola wrote the book. Today, of course, we find
ourselves on the verge of a one world government controlled solely by
the USA and its closest allies. So how, exactly, does Evola propose
that a united Europe be achieved in a profoundly Traditional sense?
The way ahead must rely upon a completely organic strategy. Not a
nationalistic myth orchestrated by fascists, but something "which would
generate a unitary impulse and an elan that in European history - let
us admit it - finds scant antecedents." Indeed, it is undoubtedly a
fact that the history of Europe is one of division and conflict. Evola
continues: "What should be excluded is nationalism (with its monstrous
appendix, namely imperialism) and chauvinism - in other words, every
fanatical absolutisation of a particular unit." Therefore the future
European empire must replace the obsessive petty-nationalism which has
plagued our beleagured continent for so many centuries. In fact as we
have already seen, the very idea in which both "unity and multiplicity"
were nurtured did previously exist in the medieval period. The empire
was a transcendental concept which refused to become involved in the
political realm, concentrating its efforts upon the representation of
an ultimately spiritual power and authority. It was a dynamic form of
organic federalism; a flowing stream in which all fish were happy to be
swimming in the same direction. Whilst nationalism always results in
fragmentation, the coming imperium must lead to a unitary order of
solidarity: "the integration and consolidation of every single nation
as a hierarchical, united, and well-differentiated whole. The nature of
the parts should reflect the nature of the whole." Evola believes that
a stable centre will result in the increase of regional, linguistic and
cultural diversity at the grass roots. Unlike the present democratic EC
infrastructure which is centred in Maastricht, however,
Evola's model
of European unity relies upon authority from above rather than from
below. Democracy itself, he believes, should be erased from the face of
Europe. A new focus or point of reference must also come into being,
one which, in previous centuries, was represented by the monarchy. It
must be spiritual in nature, too, although, unlike Christian Europe
during the Middle Ages, it should both permeate and involve all
nations. It must also, he contends, exclude non-Europeans, although in
the present day and age there is a lot to be said for the ideas of
Alexander Dugin and his belief in a Eurasian alliance. The new centre,
on the other hand, cannot be constructed purely around what is commonly
known as "European culture": Goethe, Von Humboldt, and all the other
representatives of a sophisticated culture should be paid high honours,
but it would be absurd to believe that their world could supply an
arousing and animating strength to the forces and revolutionary elites
that are struggling to unify Europe: their contribution belongs to the
mere domain of a dignified "representation," with an essentially
"historical character." On the contrary, Europe also has much to be
ashamed of. And neither is the solution designed to create a European
bloc to rival America, Africa or Asia, because Europe itself has
influenced these continents to such as extent that it now risks
becoming part of a globalised world. A positive manifestation of
European unity was demonstrated by the various regions from which the
soldiers of the SS were recruited during the Second World War, although
it remains a great pity that their efforts were so misguided and
self-destructive. Evola warns us that "a European action must proceed
in parallel with the rebirth and the revolutionary-conservative
reorganisation of the individual European countries: but to recognise
this also means to acknowledge the disheartening magnitude of the task
ahead."
The road to the new European imperium, Evola says, must be
undertaken by two groups. Firstly, he proposes that we should attract
the remaining families of the ancient nobility: "who are valuable not
only because of the name they carry, but also because of who they are,
because of their personality." Secondly, it is necessary to create a
warrior caste: "These men harbour a healthy intolerance for any
rhetoric; an indifference towards intellectualism and
politicians'
gimmicks; a realism of a higher type; the propensity for impersonal
activity; and the capability of a precise and resolute commitment."
Evola accepts that such an Order presently remains leaderless, but the
removal of the political class and a defiance of the modern world is an
imperative. He concludes his work by saying that we now require men
who, "in spite of it all, still stand upright among so many ruins."
In the opening chapter of his work, Evola can be forgiven for
appearing to sound like a typical Catholic fundamentalist. According to
the Baron, socio - political subversion (eversio)
was
introduced
into Europe for the first time with the 1789 and 1848 revolutions.
Catholic writers like Chesterton, Belloc and a whole array of popes and
cardinals would agree with him. Indeed, Evola even suggests that the
term 'reactionary' should be adopted by those who
realise the true
extent to which the forces of liberalism, Marxism and democracy are
advancing their secret agenda. We are informed that if this term had
not been so furiously rejected by the conservative opponents of
revolution, our European nations would have been relatively more
salvageable. But now that several decades have passed since the book
was first published, had the author still been alive he may well have
been surprised to learn that his ideas have found significant
expression within the ranks of those who have become known as
'conservative revolutionaries'. For Evola,
therefore, perhaps the
apparently conflicting terminology in this phrase would have been a
misnomer. On the contrary, it was used throughout the twentieth century
by men such as Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Michael Walker, Armin
Mohler and Otto Strasser. In fact Evola tells us himself that
'conservative revolution' should not be connected
with the term 'reaction' because the former has distinctly
positive and energetic
connotations. Revolution in this sense, he admits, simply means
restoring order and thus avoiding entirely its chaotic antithesis. He
even defines revolution (revolutio) - not as a
departure from
prevailing trends - but as a return to origins. Thus revolution, in his
evaluation of the term, indicates a replenishment of that which has
gone before.